I doubt very much that the NRA likes the idea of such people owning guns. The problem lies with the difficulty of early diagnosis.

And wonder of wonder, from the liberal media 60 Minutes we just got a segment that criticizes the poor support that mental health gets here, and an expert points out that most of the mass killings in the past 7 years were perpetrated by the mentally ill that slipped through the cracks or got no help at all. He went on to add that if more resources are not devoted to treatment that part of the cost will be more of these incidents.

So as not to derail a nice thread about appreciation of firearms:
(I've been drinking, so forgive typos)

No, I have repeatedly distinguished between moral principles and legal ones. For example, I despise supposedly "fellow Christians" who have themselves conflated their own narrow notion of morality with what "should" be law in this country.

So saying that the founding fathers were Christians, therefore all laws must follow Christian principles even if those principles are not defined in the US Constitution is totally different from saying the Founding Fathers were Lockean Libertarians therefore all laws must follow Lockean principles not defined in the Constitution? We all use our personal morality to define what we believe "should" be law. I believe that adultery is immoral, yet it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. I believe that the Death Penalty and abortion are both immoral, yet they are constitutional and legal. I believe that if showing violence and murder on broadcast TV is legal, then showing naked boobs and saying the F-word should be legal, but it's not. So what? Despise me.

What I've said is that the burden of argumentation is on the part of anti-gun-people to explain exactly HOW (the principled basis of) their legislative proposals are internally consistent. And the problem for them continues to be that they are QUICK to suggest sweeping laws that criminalize GUNS, when instead they should be seeking solutions that take seriously the problem of human responsibility in the USE of guns.

You suggest that "philosophical" or "moral" points can be entirely separated from "legal" ones. I state that they cannot (and still have laws remain principled and legitimate). I continually press anti-gun-people to explain what philosophical/moral principles ground their proposed legislation.

It's easy to win an argument when you set the rules, but you don't. No provision in the constitution requires a single consistent, legitimate philosophical basis for a new law. The Constitution itself is a balancing act between different or even opposing philosophical principles. If you become a member of congress, the President or a Supreme Court Justice you can apply that standard, but until then the only standard required is majority of both houses, signature of the President and being upheld by any challenge at the Supreme Court. The burden required of those who wish to see fewer gun crimes in this nation is to change the votes of perhaps a dozen members of congress, whether that is achieved by the force of their statistical/legal/moral/philosophical argument, the threat of defeat at the polls, or by legal and constitutionally protected bribery in the form of campaign contributions is irrelevant. This is what I mean by your failure to differentiate between philosophical and legal arguments.

. I believe that the United States was far, far more Libertarian-principled at its founding and that is has indeed drifted far from such philosophical principles. We have swung from Libertarian to Communitarian in our thinking, voting, and legislating; and that cannot be denied.

I'm an educated heterosexual white male, so I have no reason to doubt your claim of an erosion of Libertarian principles, however if I were poor, female, black, homosexual or a draftee, I might have a different view.

I assume you feel this drift is a bad thing, I don't, the majority agrees with me since they voted for it, and since those laws are subject to Supreme Court challenge and have survived, they are therefore constitutional, whether or not they are Libertarian in principle. This is also what I mean by your failure to differentiate between philosophical and legal arguments.

In that time while that drift to Communitarianism has happened, this nation has also become far more wealthy, healthy and powerful. Do you think there might be a relationship?

So as not to derail a nice thread about appreciation of firearms:
(I've been drinking, so forgive typos)

Well, TE, why would I leap into a morass where angels fear to tread?

The "logical" leaps you take in your various commentary should perhaps be attributed to the drinking as much as any typos.

I'm done trying to engage with you. Seriously, you simply don't understand the sorts of distinctions that could make the attempt productive. Your comparison of the "Christian" founders with the "Libertarian" founders is a classic example. You literally do not understand the difference between "principles" in the sense of applied vs meta ethics, so you conflate "principles" in both senses in your argument. And I don't have time in my life to get you up to speed on such distinctions.

Really, seriously: I mean this, you have a LOT more reading to do on ethics and political philosophy before you are worth engaging at the level you are trying for. It's an exercise in futility, and your attitude is so belligerent, that, as I said, I have no more interest in leaping into the fray.

Just count it a "win" in your own mind (as I'm confident you do at each iteration of our exchanges). Blissful ignorance reigns supreme.

What if there were some Founding Mothers? That might have shaped the Constitution some. Particularly the second amendment, many moms don't like their kids playing guns.

The mothers in those days understood two things very clearly: 1) the notion of inalienable rights; 2) the fact that those rights must often be defended by force of arms.

It's easy today to have mealy-mouthed "freedom" that was handed to you on a silver platter and for which you've never sacrificed anything. Comparing the many liberal-minded mothers of today (many of them just poppin' out kids they have no clue how to pay for) with mothers back then is a pitiful joke, plain and simple.

What if there were some Founding Brothers, Founding Asians, Founding Mexicans? Or some Founding Indians, to share the perspective of staring down the barrel of one?

Again, comparing people of any race today with the peoples of those races then is utterly ridiculous. At least the Indians back then fought and died against an oppressor, doing everything in their power to stand up for their rights and freedoms. THEY understood, as most "Americans" today cannot and will not understand, that true freedom has a high cost in blood and violence. And it's of note that they started using guns the second they could lay their hands on them.

And don't single out "White Americans" for special condemnation. Asians have been killing Asians for an order of magnitude longer than Americans have been killing anybody. Blacks were enslaving blacks LONG before a European showed up to teach them that there was a much broader market for slavery than they had ever imagined. American Indians were slaughtering each other LONG before any white man showed up. And the litany goes on and on, and for MOST of that time guns had not even been invented.

You flagrant and utterly inaccurate political correctness is transparent and ridiculous.

In that time since they've had a vote, this nation has become far more wealthy, healthy and powerful. Do you think there might be a relationship?

You can SAY it, but that doesn't make it true. The effective purchasing power of people in this nation has been steadily falling for almost 100 years, accelerated during the Wilson and FDR administrations, and now at a literally break-neck pace toward oblivion!

You have imbibed the Kool-Aid and really like it, I'm afraid. If you can look at the condition of this nation at present and call it "wealthy, healthy, and powerful," you are on some mind-altering drug--one probably printed up for you by the Fed.

Counting up every man, woman, and CHILD in the USA today, we are EACH (including EVERY KID) in debt in the amount of: $54,910 just in "virtue" of the national debt. But KIDS can't legally be in debt (although each of them will grow up to FIND themselves spectacularly in debt), so the ADULT amount is at least double that. Most people that found themselves in debt to the tune of DOUBLE their average, annual family income (debt-to-GDP, which is even an overly conservative way of casting the ratio!)... well, they would be declaring bankruptcy.

How many families would NOT be declaring bankruptcy if their indebtedness was 16 TIMES their annual income???

But it is much, much worse than even that comparison, because the debt most families carry does not directly affect their EARNING power. But the US debt very, very directly affects the overarching economy, which in turn directly affects our declining productivity, and hence the GDP side of that equation. And declining GDP CAUSES declining revenue, even as debt continues to rise.

And "powerful?" What do you mean? Militarily? Economically? This nation is on the brink of the dollar no longer being the world's reserve currency. When that happens, all of our power to play Wizard of Oz and manipulate world economies (and, hence, our debt structure) will evaporate overnight.

You are peering through a narrow window at the waning, residual effects of the economic health and power this nation ONCE had (based upon the decisions made hundreds of years ago by those "old white-haired dudes" you so blithely disparage) but that are in RAPID decline as a result of decisions made relatively recently in this nation's history.

Because things still FEEL pretty good to YOU, you intentionally blind yourself to the realities that are staring down the GUN BARREL at you (if you even actually live in America, which is an open question in my mind).

Things are NOT getting better on ANY front for us. By every metric you can employ to measure a nation's fiscal health, our vaunted "wealth" evaporated quite some time ago (thanks to this "fabulous" liberalism), and we are now literally bankrupt as a nation. Only our currency manipulations are masking this FACT. And that fact will instantly be seen in all its glory the DAY the major nations of the Earth abandon the dollar as their reserve currency. It's all smoke and mirrors now.

Instead the arbiter of eternal truth is a bunch of old white-haired dudes? Really? I mean, just listen to yourselves....

Are you even remotely serious with any PART of this? "Eternal truth?" Whaaaat?

Look, either you believe in inalienable rights, or you do not. If you do not, then you are NOT an American, regardless of where you were born and how you like to refer to yourself. The founding documents of THIS nation are literally meaningless if stripped of that fundamental axiom. So, please, IMMEDIATELY move and take your treason elsewhere. I, for one, support and defend this Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that emerged from it. If you think the Constitution needs such a fundamental reworking as to abandon our founding axioms, then, seriously, you are my enemy and the enemy of every true American. No hyperbole. These principled divides are what start real wars.

If you do believe in inalienable rights, then you just kicked yourself in the face with your above statements. Apologize to yourself and to all of us that were subjected to such blithe ridiculousness.

Some of you people seem to think that you can just pop off on an anonymous forum and vent whatever mindless wackiness comes to "mind." But this is no joke, and this country is DEEPLY (and almost exactly evenly) divided between people that WANT this nation to RETURN to its founding principles and those that think that those principles (and the people that hold them) can be trivially and blithely abandoned, as if "this nation" will go on pretty much the same or even better than before.

This divide is serious and may well result in significant bloodshed before long. At least have the decency to THOUGHTFULLY contemplate the things you say and ARGUE carefully for them. This flip, often drunken, popping off with entirely thoughtless comments reveals either the sad level of your "thinking" or is intentionally designed to trivialize something that is deadly, and I emphasize DEADLY, serious. "... Old white-haired dudes?"

Those gentlemen thought things through at a level you literally cannot even imagine. Show a bit of respect and recognize what is at stake here. Are you prepared to fight and die for your "thoughts?"

Sorry, chaps: Thee Great Days of Thy Founding Fathers are well and truly in the coffin.

So, finally, we are on the brink of agreement about something. I AM very afraid that the tide of liberalism really has come in with enough force to wash away the last remaining bulwarks of our founding principles. Perhaps it can yet be turned. But the Taco threads make me very afraid that you are indeed correct.

I'll note that your final comment makes it sound like you are not from the United States. Perhaps you are just one of the many anonymous foreigners that enjoy poking fun at the US from afar. If so, just be warned that the retraction and/or downfall of the US will portend nothing good for the rest of the world.

Look, either you believe in inalienable rights, or you do not. If you do not, then you are NOT an American, regardless of where you were born and how you like to refer to yourself. The founding documents of THIS nation are literally meaningless if stripped of that fundamental axiom. So, please, IMMEDIATELY move and take your treason elsewhere.

So dissenting opinion is now treason? Philosophers and lawyers far greater than you or I do not agree on what exactly those rights mean in theory or in practice, so whose list of inalienable rights do I need to believe in?

I accept (if not necessarily "believe") those inalienable rights explicitly defined in the Bill of Rights, and those accepted as implicit, such as self-defense. I don't accept that a person's right to bear arms or self-defense is unconstitutionally restricted by a law that requires them to ensure that the buyer of their gun is not a criminal. We have laws that have been declared constitutional that clearly restrict many other inalienable rights in order to ensure a common benefit to or prevent a greater violation, what is so special about the second amendment?

Madbolter, I have never been intentionally rude or offensive to you or anyone on this site, if I have, I do apologize. My previous expression of gratitude to you for your posts you was entirely sincere. I am a lurker far more often than I ever post, and your posts frequently lead me to learn new facts and ideas and occasionally even to change my views. I consider any correspondence where I leave thinking or knowing more than I started to be a win.

We obviously share a love of climbing, and we likely share more common beliefs than you would ever imagine, but I try to express mine as merely my personal beliefs and I have and will continue to take exception to what is perhaps only your literary device of presenting your opinion or political philosophy as fact. I am a scientist, not a philosopher, I can readily believe in almost anything, but facts need proof.

I believe in inalienable rights. I believe in a right to life and liberty, implicit in which is the right to self-defense. When it comes to property/fruits of labor, I rapidly become much more nuanced. Those are my beliefs, they are not facts and cannot be proven or disproven.

Despite my belief in inalienable rights, it is a fact that if I lived in a society that did not share those beliefs or protect those rights, their existence would serve as little consolation to me. This is why I believe that the societal contract to protect those rights is the only way in which those rights or any other rights have any any effective existence, and is therefore far more important than the philosophy behind that contract. To me as a scientist, any argument based on the existence of an unprovable entity is a valuable and interesting exercise, but to present conclusions from such an argument as fact is dishonest.

TE, I really appreciate your post, and I apologize for coming across like I'm pompous. Tone is very, very hard to convey by email or forum posts, and I must admit that I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm sorry for taking you that way! Most "disagreement" posts on the Taco are heavily laden with sarcasm and personal attacks. I must have subconsciously painted you at least a bit with that brush. For that I am indeed sorry.

We might well agree about more than we ultimately disagree about. I have hopes that we can find that common ground and build from there with discussions that will prove more productive than are most on the taco stand. And now that I have a sense of how to "read" you, that will help a lot!

Believe me, I am very sympathetic with your idea that you believe in inalienable rights but that defining exactly what they are and what parameters they have, particularly in a society that is increasingly clueless about this basic, is the big issue. In discussing this, I'm trying to find that magic balance between "holding the line," trying to actually explain something, and simultaneously not coming off as too pompous of a jerk. I'm sure I err on all sides of the attempt.

Yes, women who had no right to vote and who didn't attend school knew all about your imaginary inalienable rights?!!? Hahahahahahaha..... That may be the dumbest post ever on supertopo. Hahahaha......

Actually, many woman in those days were a lot more educated and aware than many college-educated people nowadays. They understood the price of freedom and what it implied a LOT better than people today.

All fluff and nonsense. I'll say again: either you believe in inalienable rights or you do not. If you do, then you should know that there is nothing "romanticized" about truly understanding what the founders intended to set up. If you do not, then your version of Amerika is really what is romanticized.

Oh, and unlike our founders, who merely had (turns out very GOOD) theory to go on, WE are the beneficiaries of 100 years of social experimentation that clearly contrasts the empirically-known failings of communitarianism with the empirically-known successes of philosophical libertarianism.